ESCOLA DE HUMANIDADES
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM CIÊNCIAS SOCIAIS DOUTORADO EM CIÊNCIAS SOCIAIS
GUSTAVO MATIUZZI DE SOUZA
LOCAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE NEW AGENDA FOR COOPERATION AND BORDER DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN-URUGUAYAN CROSS-BORDER REGION
Porto Alegre 2018
PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF RIO GRANDE DO SUL UNIVERSITY OF LIÈGE
GUSTAVO MATIUZZI DE SOUZA
LOCAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE NEW AGENDA FOR COOPERATION AND BORDER DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN-URUGUAYAN
CROSS-BORDER REGION
Porto Alegre 2018
GUSTAVO MATIUZZI DE SOUZA
LOCAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE NEW AGENDA FOR COOPERATION AND BORDER DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN-URUGUAYAN
CROSS-BORDER REGION
Dissertation presented as a partial requirement to obtain Doctoral Degree from the Social Sciences Graduate Program of the School of Humanities of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul and to obtain, under cotutelle and double diploma agreement, Doctoral Degree from the Doctoral Collegiate of the University of Liège.
Co-advisor: Dr. Emil Albert Sobottka, Professor (PUCRS) Co-advisor: Dr. Sebastian Santander, Professor (University of Liège)
Porto Alegre 2018
GUSTAVO MATIUZZI DE SOUZA
LOCAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE NEW AGENDA FOR COOPERATION AND BORDER DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN-URUGUAYAN
CROSS-BORDER REGION
Dissertation presented as requirement to obtain Doctoral Degree from the Social Sciences Graduate Program of the School of Humanities of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul and from the Doctoral Collegiate of the University of Liège.
Approved on: 27 of April 2018.
EXAMINATION BOARD:
Dr. Emil Albert Sobottka (co-advisor) - PUCRS
Dr. Sebastian Santander (co-advisor) - University of Liège
Dr. Rafael Machado Madeira - PUCRS
Dr. Pierre Verjans - University of Liège
Dr. Maria Izabel Mallmann – PUCRS
Dr. Aldomar Arnaldo Rückert - UFRGS
Dr. Erica Simone Almeida Resende – ESG
Porto Alegre 2018
To the One who revealed Himself in between pages and thoughts in a long and lonesome journey toward true knowledge and wisdom. To Him be all the glory.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
‘Much study is wearisome to the flesh’, advised the wise man. Indeed, it is. In a lengthy process such as learning the inconspicuous ways of research, no manuals nor lectures can prepare one for the expedition towards the laborious paths of sleepless nights, interminable readings, and countless revisions. Now, one should be careful not to be misguided by the idea of self-sufficiency. If one believes to be able to venture along this knowledge path unaccompanied, one is mistaken. I need to express my gratitude to the people who have contributed to make this doctoral period feasible (and bearable).
In face of the competitive environment of the academy, people do not always cooperate. I was blessed to be able to name several people, who looked beyond their own interests, helping me achieve the best of my skills. Maria Izabel Mallmann, my first advisor, opened doors, believed in me, and fought for me since the beginning. I will be always grateful for your insights, availability, trustworthiness, and straightforward way of thinking. Your competence is notorious as well as is your expertise. Having given me one of my first Social Sciences lectures, it is an interesting feeling to observe the end of this phase. Thank you very much. Sebastian Santander, from University of Liège, who co-advised me and led the way during my research in Belgium. Your professionalism and your ability to provide the best atmosphere for a truly autonomous work, albeit guided, will be always a goal to reach. Thank you for your support that went beyond the academic dominion. Emil Sobottka, my second advisor from PUCRS. You did not have time or opportunity to do much. Nevertheless, your serenity to make decisions is something worth learning in such turbulent times. Thank you. My colleagues from Porto Alegre and Liège, from doctoral and post-doctoral groups, who gave me many advices and support with my questions on bureaucratic matters. Thank you for the insights, laughs, and coffees. I must also acknowledge the role of administrative personnel in their work on the heavy paperwork from two universities and two national legislations. Finally, the preponderant role of CAPES, for allowing me to concentrate exclusively on this research with the doctoral scholarship (not without the hardships of low-income reality, I must say).
I cannot avoid the redundancy of thanking my family. My Redhead Flower has ‘lived’ my doctorate in the most comprehensive sense. To share myself with a computer was not always easy, despite your understanding reactions. Your presence made this
journey a little less lonely. Your interest on my work made it seem more stimulating and significant. May this be only one more barrier we surpass together. What the next seven years hold only God can tell. It will be surely amazing and beautiful. I love you with all I am. My parents and sister are the experts in providing tangible and intangible support. They are entirely responsible for the godly words and directions, jokes and laughs, lengthy conversations (even from afar), and material assistance (thanks, dad!). Your selflessness and humbleness of Jesus are traits I long to achieve every day. Having our paths crossed in the same place again would be more than joy for me. I love the three of you forever.
Finally, there is no life truly lived without friends. I was given the pleasure of calling them my siblings in Christ. The role you played in keeping me progressing is beyond measure. By becoming the place where life is manifested, together we are more. Barbecues and parties, prayers, and meetings all served to join us as one. Thank you. And to the ones that even cared to transcribe endless interviews, thank you very much. Stress levels were contained within acceptable parameters. To friends not so close, you know who you are as well as I do. Your prayers and words reached me as your own arms. God willing, we will meet anytime soon. Thank you. My friend above all, Jesus, You are the reason for all my efforts. I will not grow tired of living for You. Thank you for being the way, the truth, and the life, in this world of perdition, uncertainty, and demise. My gratitude will never be enough.
ABSTRACT
This thesis identifies local actors’ perceptions on the operationalization of the New Agenda for Cooperation and Border Development (New Agenda) in the Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border region (Bucbr), emphasizing the relationship between formal (state) and informal (non-state) actors and processes. After fifteen years, local actors’ engagement in New Agenda’s projects, and compliance with its agreements and frameworks were extremely low. If the New Agenda should be considered a response to local demands, why was/is there such low engagement and compliance of local actors with its projects and agreements? To answer this question, this thesis draws from International Relations theories a plural, reflectivist and constructivist approach that enables the employment of ‘perception’ as a relevant analytical variable. The use of interviews and the application of an electronic survey are the main primary sources. Bibliographical research and official statistics are applied for contextual data. Historical analysis is employed for comprehending the relationship between state and non-state actors in the social construction of the Bucbr. This thesis finds that compliance and engagement have little to do with a border culture of informality and illegality. They are related more to a New Agenda’s deficient institutionality and the perpetuation of ignorance toward the social reality of the Bucbr and the demands of local actors. The issues of engagement and compliance of local actors with the New Agenda is intimately linked with the unsatisfactory state offer of institutionality capable to turn the Bucbr into a legal and normative space in which the region could implement, autonomously, local development strategies for its cross-border populations. Such an institutionality would potentially change the way formal and informal actors relate. Moreover, the deeply rooted trans-local modus agendi of the region is likely to be either cause for resistance of any project that attempts to control or change it or the basis of novel cooperative regimes.
Key words: New Agenda; Brazilian-Uruguayan Cross-Border Region; Local Actors; Perceptions; Reflectivism and Constructivism.
RESUMO
A presente tese identifica as percepções dos atores locais sobre a operacionalização da Nova Agenda para Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Fronteiriço (Nova Agenda) na região transfronteiriça brasileira-uruguaia (Rtbu), enfatizando a relação entre atores e processos formais (estatais) e informais (não-estatais). Após quinze anos, o envolvimento dos atores locais nos projetos da Nova Agenda e o cumprimento de seus acordos e frameworks foram extremamente baixos. Se a Nova Agenda deve ser considerada uma resposta às demandas locais, por que houve baixos envolvimento e conformidade dos atores locais com seus projetos e acordos? Para responder a essa pergunta, esta tese extrai das teorias das Relações Internacionais uma abordagem plural, reflexiva e construtivista que permite o emprego de “percepção” como variável analítica relevante. O uso de entrevistas e a aplicação de pesquisa eletrônica são as principais fontes primárias. Pesquisas bibliográficas e estatísticas oficiais são aplicadas na elaboração de dados contextuais. A análise histórica é empregada para compreender a relação entre atores estatais e não estatais na construção social da Rtbu. Esta tese conclui que os problemas de cumprimento e engajamento têm pouco a ver com uma cultura fronteiriça de informalidade e ilegalidade. Estão mais relacionados com a deficiência da Nova Agenda e a perpetuação da ignorância em relação à realidade social da Rtbu e às demandas dos atores locais. As questões de engajamento e conformidade dos atores locais com a Nova Agenda estão intimamente ligadas à insatisfatória oferta estatal de institucionalidade capaz de transformar a Rtbu em um espaço legal e normativo em que a região pudesse implementar, de forma autônoma, estratégias de desenvolvimento local para as suas populações transfronteiriças. Essa institucionalidade poderia mudar a maneira como os atores formais e informais se relacionam. Além disso, o modus agendi trans-local, profundamente enraizado na região, é susceptível tanto de ser causa para a resistência a qualquer projeto que tente controla-lo ou alterá-lo, quanto de servir como base para novos regimes de cooperação.
Palavras-chave: Nova Agenda; Região Transfronteiriça Brasileiro-Uruguaia; Atores Locais; Percepções; Refletivismo e Construtivismo.
RÉSUMÉ
Cette thèse identifie les perceptions des acteurs locaux sur la mise en œuvre du Nouveau programme de coopération et de développement frontalier (NPCDF) dans la région frontalière du Brésil-Uruguay (Rfbu), soulignant la relation entre les acteurs et les processus formels (état) et informel (non étatique). Après quinze ans, l’engagement des acteurs locaux envers des projets du NPCDF et la conformité aux accords et cadres ont été extrêmement faibles. Si le NPCDF doit être considéré comme une réponse aux demandes locales, pourquoi y a-t-il eu peu de participation et de conformité des acteurs locaux à ses projets et accords ? Pour répondre à cette question, cette thèse extrait dans les théories des relations internationales une approche pluriel, réflexive et constructiviste qui permet l'utilisation de la « perception » comme une variable d'analyse pertinente. L'utilisation d'interviews et l'application d'un questionnaire électronique sont les principales sources primaires. La recherche bibliographique et les statistiques officielles sont appliquées à la préparation des données contextuelles. L'analyse historique est utilisée pour comprendre la relation entre les acteurs étatiques et non étatiques dans la construction sociale de la Rfbu. Cette thèse conclut que les problèmes de conformité et d'engagement ont peu à voir avec une culture frontalière d'informalité et d'illégalité. Ils sont davantage liés à la déficience du NPCDF et à la perpétuation de l'ignorance par rapport à la réalité sociale de la Rfbu et aux exigences des acteurs locaux. L'engagement et la conformité des acteurs locaux au NPCDF sont étroitement liés à l’insatisfaisante fourniture des institutions capables de transformer la Rfbu dans un espace juridique et normatif dans lequel la région pourrait mettre en œuvre, de manière autonome, les stratégies de développement local pour leurs populations transfrontalières. Cette institutionnalité pourrait changer la façon dont les acteurs formels et informels interagissent. En outre, le modus agendi trans-local, qui est profondément enraciné dans la région, est susceptible d'être une cause de résistance à tout projet qui tente de le contrôler ou de le modifier, ou de servir de base à de nouveaux programmes de coopération.
Mots-clés : Nouveau programme (NPCDF) ; Région transfrontalière du Brésil-Uruguay ; Acteurs Locaux ; Perceptions ; Réflectivisme et Constructivisme.
RESUMEN
La presente tesis identifica las percepciones de los actores locales sobre la operacionalización de la Nueva Agenda para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Fronterizo (Nueva Agenda) en la región transfronteriza brasileña-uruguaya (Rtbu), enfatizando la relación entre actores y procesos formales (estatales) e informales (no-estatales). Después de quince años, la participación de los actores locales en los proyectos de la Nueva Agenda y el cumplimiento de sus acuerdos y frameworks fueron extremadamente bajos. Si la Nueva Agenda debe ser considerada una respuesta a las demandas locales, ¿por qué hubo poca participación y conformidad de los actores locales con sus proyectos y acuerdos? Para responder a esta pregunta, esta tesis extrae de las teorías de las Relaciones Internacionales un enfoque plural, reflexivo y constructivista que permite el empleo de “percepción” como variable analítica relevante. El uso de entrevistas y la aplicación de cuestionario electrónico son las principales fuentes primarias. Las investigaciones bibliográficas y estadísticas oficiales se aplican en la elaboración de datos contextuales. El análisis histórico se emplea para comprender la relación entre actores estatales y no estatales en la construcción social de la Rtbu. Esta tesis concluye que los problemas de cumplimiento y compromiso tienen poco que ver con una cultura fronteriza de informalidad e ilegalidad. Están más relacionados con la deficiencia de la Nueva Agenda y la perpetuación de la ignorancia con relación a la realidad social de la Rtbu y a las demandas de los actores locales. Las cuestiones de compromiso y conformidad de los actores locales con la Nueva Agenda están íntimamente ligadas a la insatisfactoria oferta estatal de institucionalidad capaz de transformar la Rtbu en un espacio legal y normativo en que la región pudiera implementar, de forma autónoma, estrategias de desarrollo local para sus poblaciones transfronterizas. Esta institucionalidad podría cambiar la forma en que los actores formales e informales se relacionan. Además, el modus agendi trans-local, profundamente arraigado en la región, es susceptible tanto de ser causa para la resistencia a cualquier proyecto que intente controlarlo o alterarlo, como de servir como base para nuevos regímenes de cooperación.
Palabras clave: Nueva Agenda; Región Transfronteriza Brasileño-Uruguaya; Actores Locales; Percepciones; Reflectivismo y Constructivismo.
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Hierarchy of perceptions according to constructivism... 78
Figure 2 The Pampas ecosystem ... 101
Figure 3 Border demarcations between Brazilian state of RS and Uruguay ... 110
Figure 4 Documents issuing based on the Border and Mercosur Agreements ... 146
Figure 5 New Agenda’s projects according to implementation status (2002-2013) .... 156
Figure 6 Actors’ participation in New Agenda’s projects implementation (2000-2013) ... 158
Figure 7 Chuí-Chuy and Aceguá-Aceguá cross-border urban configurations ... 183
Figure 8 Local perceptions on official meetings of the New Agenda ... 218
Figure 9 Local actors' perceptions on the main problems of the New Agenda ... 219
Figure 10 Local actors' perceptions on normatization by the NA ... 229
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1 The Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border region ... 34
Map 2 The La Plata River East Basin in the 18th Century... 105
Map 3 Towns listed in the revised Border Agreement (2008) and the 20 Km strip .... 138
Map 4 The Bucbr ... 171
Map 5 S. Livramento-Rivera cross-border urban configuration ... 181
Map 6 Barra do Quaraí-Bella Unión-Monte Caseros triple border area ... 186
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Classification of respondents by UC ... 42
Table 2 Categories of perceptions on the New Agenda ... 44
Table 3 Pre-New Agenda institutional space for border issues and local participation 134 Table 4 Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border urban complexes and spatial articulation . 171 Table 5 Emancipation year of UCs’ municipalities... 173
Table 6 Population of UCs by municipality ... 174
Table 7 GDP per capita in the Bucbr (in thousands of USD) ... 175
Table 8 HDI distribution in the Bucbr (2010) ... 176
Table 9 Typology of cross-border interactions of UCs (2017) ... 179
Table 10 State control in UCs’ area (2017) ... 193
Table 11 Indicators of structural perceptions ... 212
Table 12 Frequency of PSP and NSP by UC ... 213
Table 13 Indicators of culture perceptions ... 225
Table 14 Frequency of PCP and NCP by UC ... 226
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A-A Aceguá-Aceguá cross-border urban complex ALADI Latin American Integration Association
ANCAP Uruguayan National Fuel, Alcohols and Portland Administration
APC Agreement on Police Cooperation in the Investigation, Prevention, and Control of Criminal Acts
AR Argentine
ASSE Uruguayan Health Service National Administration B-B Barra do Quaraí-Bella Unión cross-border urban complex
BC Border Committees
BCA Brazilian Cooperation Agency
BCBIM Binational Committee of Border Intendents and Mayors BHBAB Border Health Binational Advisory Board
BHCSLR Binational Health Committee of Santana do Livramento-Rivera BIMO Brazilian Border Integrated Management Office
BR Brazil
Bucbr Brazilian-Uruguayan Cross-Border Region C-C Chuí-Chuy cross-border urban complex
CAIF Uruguayan Center for Comprehensive Care in Early Childhood and Family
CBR Cross-Border Region
CETP-UTU Board of Professional Technical Education - Labor University of Uruguay CMC Common Market Council of Mercosur
CML Commission for the Mirim Lagoon CORSAN Sanitation Company Riograndense
CREMERS Regional Medical Council of the State of Rio Grande do Sul CUT Complejo urbano transfronteirizo (Cross-border urban complex) EEC European Economic Community
ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America ECSC European Coal and Steel Community
ENAFRON Security for Borders National Strategy of Brazil
FEPAM Foundation for Environmental Protection of Rio Grande do Sul FOCEM Mercosur Structural Convergence Fund
GCC General Commission of Coordination GDP Gross Domestic Product
HDI Human Development Index HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus HLG High-Level Group
HLM High-Level Meeting
IASO International Affairs Special Office of Rio Grande do Sul IBGE Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics
IFSul Instituto Federal do Sul (Southern Federal Institute) INE National Institute of Statistics of Uruguay
IPE International Political Economy IR International Relations
J-R Jaguarão-Rio Branco cross-border urban complex
Km Kilometer
LAFTA Latin American Free Trade Association
MCPC Mechanism of Consultation and Political Concertation MERCOSUR Southern Common Market
MIDES Ministry of Social Development of Uruguay MNI Ministry of National Integration
MRE Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Relations MREU Uruguayan Ministry of Foreign Relations
NA New Agenda for Cooperation and Border Development NACDF Nueva Agenda de Cooperación y Desarrollo Fronterizo NCP Negative Cultural Perceptions
NEROI International Relations and Organizations Study Nucleus NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NR New Regionalism
NRA New Regionalism Approaches NSP Negative Structural Perceptions OSE State Sanitary Works of Uruguay OTU Territory Observatory of Uruguay
PAHO-WHO Pan-American Health Organization-World Health Organization
PCDIBS Permanent Commission on Development and Integration of the Border Strip
PCP Positive Cultural Perceptions
PDFF Brazilian Border Strip Development Promotion Program PDU Portuguese Dialects of Uruguay
PEIBF Program for Border Intercultural Bilingual Schools PSP Positive Structural Perceptions
PUCRS Pontifical Catholic University of do Rio Grande do Sul Q-A Quaraí-Artigas cross-border urban complex
QRC Quaraí River Commission RBA Region Building Approach
RI Relações internacionais
SEDAI International Affairs Special Office of Rio Grande do Sul Sefaz-RS Department of Finance of Rio Grande do Sul
SELA Latin American System
S-R Santana do Livramento-Rivera cross-border urban complex TMN Transborder Movement of NGOs
UC Cross-border urban complex UFPel Pelotas Federal University USA United States of America USD US Dollars
UY Uruguay
WG Work Group
WOA World Order Approach WWII World War II
Of making many books there is no end. (Ecclesiastes XII, 12)
IN LIEU OF A PREFACE: THE QUEST FOR A RESEARCH PROBLEM
When the challenge of studying Brazil-Uruguay cross-border relations presented itself in the beginning of 2014 due to interesting advances of bilateral relations in the scope of the ‘New Agenda for Cooperation and Border Development’ (hereafter ‘New Agenda’), it seemed logical trying to understand the engenderment of agreements and formal structures created with the sole purpose of fostering the so-called ‘border integration’. The journey on the paths of doctoral research initiated with the employment of institutionalist perspectives focused on policies developed by national frameworks. The initial plan was to discover the relevance of Brazil-Uruguay bilateral relations for the Brazilian project of international insertion, given its condition of having much advantage in some areas, but also many vulnerabilities (GUIMARÃES, 2005), which influenced its capacity as a regional leader or as a paymaster of regional cooperation and integration (MALAMUD, 2013). The evidence revealed that Brazil fostered regionalism in two fronts: one multilateral, used to promote regional stability and political articulation; and other, bilateral, consistent with the Brazilian capacities of paying the costs of regional cooperation. Within statist plans, the New Agenda demonstrated the commitment of Brazil and Uruguay to implement concrete projects capable of changing the daily life of local populations (AVEIRO, 2006; PUCCI, 2010)
The undeniable political capital gain from the rapprochement of these two countries and the impact that development policies could have had for local populations seemed not sufficient for explaining Brazilian interest in such a bold and costly venture. Considering the intricate relationship between formal projects of regional cooperation and local cross-border cooperation (RHI-SAUSI and COLETTI, 2010; ODDONE, 2014), the political enterprise of creating cross-border local development policies with Uruguay was not likely to succeed. Nevertheless, what if Brazil (a nation rapidly growing, and with global ambitions at the time) aimed for the creation of a regional model of border relations for Mercosur from the experience with Uruguay? And what was the outcome of the bilateral and regional settlements concerning the cross-border region? It did not materialize according to Brazilian plans. Lengthy political negotiations, lack of
consensus, and absence of coordination failed to create transnational spaces, emphasizing the need of restructuring the Mercosurian framework (MATIUZZI DE SOUZA, 2016).
The analysis on institutions (Mercosur, Brazilian and Uruguayan states), their capabilities, and the formal processes of policymaking had not offered hitherto a problematique worthy of seizing much attention, let alone writing a thesis. The institutionalist approaches of the mentioned researches have failed to consider the notorious fragilities of institutional frameworks common to South American countries and regional bodies as an a priori reality, pointing out to the same obstacles of formal structures of governance as fundamental difficulties that should be resolved. The normativity of the embedded rationalism present in such approaches contributed to the conclusion that the problem was structural. This suggested that the employed institutionalist analyses could not acknowledge the contextual reality of the regional phenomena in the continent.
To be more familiarized with other approaches, during the first doctoral year, I took the task of comparing the capabilities of social-constructivist theories with applications of the existent institutionalist, rationalist theories of regionalism in understanding historical and present conditions of social reality, especially Latin American regionalism and cross-border realities. The institutionalist notion of ‘integration demand and offer’ emphasized the failure of Mercosur and other Latin American regionalist projects (MATTLI, 1999; BOUZAS and SOLTZ, 2001). On the other hand, the idea of an encompassing construction process of integration, involving actors, their ideas, objectives, and methods seemed to be more attentive to regional contextualization (DABÈNE, 2009), being more suitable for Mercosurian sub-regions. Thus, it was important to advance this investigation towards trying to comprehend some underlying, or even concealed ideas and/or relations within the bilateral or regional spheres of the case studied. This led this quest toward identifying the role of politico-ideological synergies within the functioning of Mercosur, written in co-authorship, (MATIUZZI DE SOUZA; CULPI, 2016) as well as the effects of the ‘progressive’ agenda for border integration (MATIUZZI DE SOUZA, 2015b). Both works, nonetheless, led to similar conclusions and dilemmas. Despite partially explaining some contextual capacities and limitations of the institutional framework of Mercosur and of Brazil-Uruguay bilateral relations, neither politico-ideological synergies nor progressive
agendas were conceptualizations capable of clarifying how formal South American regional environment affected informal regionalism within cross-border regions.
A more audacious shift was needed. Being able to get in contact, in previous opportunities, with Fredrik Söderbaum and with his theorization on regionalism in Southern Africa (SÖDERBAUM, 2004) while living in Gothenburg during the mid-2000s, an idea that could potentially focus the research semel pro semper unfolded: if one is willing to understand the inherent interactions of an intricate, dynamic process such as regionalism, one should look at the so-called ‘social construction process’ of a region, its ‘becoming’. Among many of the characteristics of the so-called new regionalism, the participation of local actors in some regionalist processes, the involvement of subnational governments, and the softening of international borders followed the increase of transnational relations, that is, economic, cultural, and political transnational exchanges at the local level (POSTEL‐VINAY, 1996). The ‘trans-local’ activity of such interactions can be considered the basis on which international regionalism connects to (classic) national regionalism. Trans-localism (that is, local actors’ interactions beyond international borders) represented a significant ‘space for action’ beyond the infra-national/transnational connection of this regionalist wave (POSTEL-VINAY, 2001 [1998]) and nowadays. Hence, studying regionalism meant also understanding some trans-local relations/ideas within or even beyond formal regional bodies.
The reality within the Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border region (Bucbr1) could, in this perspective, give me data to understand not only the building process of the region per se, but also hints on the construction of the bigger ‘Mercosurian region’, considering that the former is within the latter. Since the research was conducted primarily in Brazil and Uruguay, I decided to scrutinize the theoretical debate on whether to use the concept of ‘regional integration’ (predominantly applied in Latin America) or ‘regionalism’ for understanding the complex relational web of interactions at the border studied. The necessity of profound theoretical and empirical analysis to apply concepts and terms in scientific language required more attention to the use of such definitions (GOERTZ, 2006). On the one hand, ‘regional integration’ should be understood within neofunctionalist theories and assumptions, as they can be considered ‘virtual synonyms’
1 The denomination ‘Bucbr’ does not work as a theoretical and conceptual construction that
attempts to deal with the geopolitical game or the socioeconomic interactions within this area, but as a simple way to economize space, avoid tiring repetitions, and simplify reading.
(ROSAMOND, 2000, p. 50), and therefore should be studied in those terms. On the other hand, ‘regionalism’ refers to the phase and theories regarding the advance of multidimensionality of regional phenomena, such as informal coalitions (SÖDERBAUM; SHAW, 2003). The final decision fell on the choosing of regionalism as key concept, as well as a constructivist and reflectivist conceptual framework to better grasp the informal reality at the border and its relationship with ‘higher’, formal levels of governance.
From a fieldwork trip to the Bucbr to Aceguá-Aceguá and Santana do Livramento-Rivera, the informal dynamics on which local relations are based revealed to be central in understanding local realities and some of the limitations of the New Agenda (and of Mercosur, for that matter). It was evident that the construction process of a region had microregional foundations constituted by non-state interactions. Keating (2000) refers to the influence of paradiplomatic actors (such as border municipalities) being limited to the margins of the state. The role of Mercosur, understood as a ‘policy environment’, is key in this process (HOCKING, 1999), but the weakness of local entities, and the nations’ primary objective of control and sovereignty, already attested in the mid-1990s (VALENCIANO, 1996), could still be a relevant matter. From this reasoning, a question emerged: If informal (non-state or simply personal-level) interactions were the basis of the region-building process, how was the quality of institutional framework for the paradiplomatic action of bordering towns in Mercosur and in the New Agenda? Focusing on the local context of the towns, the evidence indicated that state responses to social and economic demands of the Bucbr strongly restricted foreign policy of twin-towns concomitant to promoting conditions for communicating their demands (DE SOUZA, 2017). In other words, State neglected social reality at the border, but fostered a hollow structure that did (and does) not offer actual tools for bordering localities to alter the path from poverty and exclusion to social and economic development.
Understanding trans-local interactions (that is, local and transnational at the same time) within the Bucbr could thus impart on the concreteness of social reality at the border, on empirical regionalism. It could also uncover local, non-state relations that function within the region. More: it could reveal the processes whereby interactions ‘produce’ a region, something all my previous studies and contributions (either ‘pure’ institutionalist or with ‘sociological awareness’) were not able to demonstrate. It was decided to pursue this research looking at the de facto regionalisms, at the informal (non-state) realities of cross-border communities through the analysis of local perceptions on
the New Agenda. From this perspective (that is, ‘from below’), it can be possible to unveil another facet of regionalism within and beyond the New Agenda and the intergovernmental structure on which it was engendered. The ontological and epistemological foundations for a research problem had been finally laid.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 29
1PRESENTING THE THESIS... 29 2THE BRAZILIAN-URUGUAYAN CROSS-BORDER REGION AND THE NEW AGENDA ... 35 3THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS, AND FIELDWORK DESCRIPTION IN THE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL REGIONALISM RESEARCH ... 38 4THE IMPORTANCE OF PERCEPTIONS AND THE NEW AGENDA: A RESEARCH JUSTIFICATION .... 45 5THE SCHOLARSHIP ON THE NEW AGENDA ... 46
CHAPTER 1 – REGIONALISMS AND CROSS-BORDER REGIONS IN IR THEORY 55
1.1INTERRELATED CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS WITHIN INTERNATIONAL REGIONALISM (AND BEYOND) ... 57 1.2EARLY REGIONALISM AND THE FORMATION OF NATION-STATES ... 61 1.3OLD REGIONALISM: PREVALENCE OF RATIONALISM AND FORMALISM ... 63 1.3.1 Neorealism ... 66 1.3.2 Liberal institutionalism ... 68 1.3.3 Economic integration theory ... 73 1.4NEW REGIONALISM AND THE RISE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST AND REFLECTIVIST THEORIES:
INFORMAL INTERACTIONS IN THE SPOTLIGHT ... 74 1.4.1 Social constructivism: perceptions in the spotlight ... 76 1.4.2 Coxian critical theories ... 80 1.4.3 Post-structuralism and post-modernism ... 82 1.4.4 New Regionalism Approaches (NRA) ... 83 1.4.5 Some critiques to new regionalism theory ... 86 1.5COMPARATIVE REGIONALISM AND THEORETICAL PLURALISM ... 86 1.5.1 Border, cross-border regions, and perceptions: a constructivist and reflectivist conceptual framework ... 87 1.5.2 (Cross-border) regions and regionalisms ... 90 1.6NORMS, PERCEPTIONS, AND CROSS-BORDER REGIONS:THE NEW AGENDA AND MICRO -REGIONALIST DYNAMICS ... 92 1.6.1 Cross-border urban complexes as privileged spaces: contextual variables for the study of perceptions ... 95 1.7FINAL REMARKS ON REGIONALISM THEORY AND THE NEW AGENDA... 97
CHAPTER 2 – THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRAZILIAN-URUGUAYAN CROSS-BORDER REGION ... 100
2.1COLONIALISM AND THE SEARCH FOR (MICRO) REGIONAL AUTONOMY IN THE EASTERN
PLATINE REGION (1620-1777) ... 102 2.2SECURITARIANISM OF STATE-BUILDING AND PERIPHERAL LOCALISM OF THE BUCBR
(1777-1909) ... 109 2.3ACTIVE INFORMAL INTERACTIONS, LATENT FORMAL RELATIONS: INTERNATIONAL
POLITICAL ECONOMY AND THE BUCBR (1909-1975) ... 115
2.4SOUTHERN CONE RELATIONS TOWARD COOPERATION: IGNORING CROSS-BORDER REGIONS? (1975-2002) ... 121 2.5FINAL REMARKS ON THE HISTORY OF AN UNEVEN RELATIONSHIP ... 127
CHAPTER 3 – CREATION AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE NEW AGENDA ... 131
3.1CONVERGING RELATIONS LEADING TO THE NEW AGENDA ... 131 3.2THE INSTITUTIONAL DNA OF THE NEW AGENDA AND ITS LEGACY TO BORDER ISSUES AND ACTORS ... 132 3.3THE NEW AGENDA FOR COOPERATION AND BORDER DEVELOPMENT ... 137 3.4MAIN AGREEMENTS AND PROJECTS OF THE NEW AGENDA (2002-2017) ... 144 3.4.1 Residence ... 144 3.4.2 Health and sanitation ... 148 3.4.3 Education ... 150 3.4.4 Security ... 152 3.4.5 Culture ... 154 3.5CHALLENGES TO THE NEW AGENDA ... 154 3.5.1 Discrepant national administrative frameworks: Brazilian federalism, Uruguayan
centralism and public policies ... 159 3.5.2 Brazilian and Uruguayan national programs at/about the border ... 164 3.6FINAL REMARKS ON THE NEW AGENDA’S INSTITUTIONALITY ... 166
CHAPTER 4 – LOCAL CONTEXTS OF THE BUCBR VIS-À-VIS THE NEW AGENDA ... 170
4.1POPULATION DATA AND SOCIOECONOMIC INDICES ... 173 4.2SHARING OF THE SAME ENVIRONMENT ... 176 4.3LOCAL INTERACTIONS ... 178 4.3.1 Similar interactional realities, distinct spaces and priorities ... 180 4.3.2 Trans-border cultural homogeneity ... 190 4.4SPATIAL CONFIGURATIONS ... 192 4.5ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE ... 196 4.6LOCAL, INSTITUTIONALIZED COOPERATION ... 201 4.7FINAL REMARKS ON THE LOCAL CONTEXTS OF THE BUCBR AND ITS UCS ... 205
CHAPTER 5 – LOCAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE NEW AGENDA: BEHIND LOW ENGAGEMENT AND COMPLIANCE RATES ... 209
5.1STRUCTURAL EXPLANATION AND LOCAL ACTORS’ PERCEPTIONS ... 210 5.2CULTURAL EXPLANATION AND LOCAL ACTORS’ PERCEPTIONS ... 223 5.3THE POLITICAL ISSUE ... 233 5.4PERCEPTION OF MUTUAL NEED ... 236 5.5FINAL REMARKS ON LOCAL PERCEPTIONS ON THE NEW AGENDA ... 238
CONCLUSIONS ... 240 REFERENCES ... 249 APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW SCRIPT ... 277 APPENDIX B – ELECTRONIC QUESTIONNAIRE (PORTUGUESE VERSION) ... 278 APPENDIX C – DATASETS AND RAW TABLES ... 282
La integración fronteriza, más allá de tener una concreción bilateralmente o en el marco de los esquemas de integración subregional, debe ser reconocida como una política de integración regional de América Latina y el Caribe. (SELA, 2012, p. 69)
INTRODUCTION
1 Presenting the thesis
Nearly the entire scholarship of the incipient literature dedicated to the extensive study of the Brazilian-Uruguayan New Agenda for Cooperation and Border Development (hereafter New Agenda) (SANTOS; SANTOS, 2005; AVEIRO, 2006; NAVARRETE, 2006; PUCCI, 2010; RÓTULO; DAMIANI, 2010; RÓTULO, 2012; LEMOS, 2013; RÓTULO et al., 2014; CLEMENTE; MALLMANN, 2017; MALLMANN; CLEMENTE, 2017), understood as a means to foster international regionalism, recognize the promotion of cross-border cooperation through a complex bilateral endeavor to be a response to local demands, ending a historical period of neglect and oblivion toward this cross-border region. Nevertheless, they also identify numerous difficulties on its operationalization processes, which resulted in the lack of practical outcomes. The literature underlines three main reasons for this, (1) specificities of local dynamics or culture; (2) complications of public polices implementation systems in an international environment; and (3) infrastructure limitations of local municipalities and departments.
After 15 years since the signature of the so-called ‘Border Agreement’ that originated the New Agenda, the evidence of the problems concerning the operationalization processes of this norm-making bilateral relationship is clear, especially regarding the participation of local actors. The comprehensive analysis of Rótulo et al. (2014) on the capacities of the New Agenda institutionalities from 2002 to 2012 (its most prolific period) demonstrates that only 33% of actors within the Brazilian municipal level have participated in projects in the scope of the bilateral plan. This number decreases to 31% concerning actors within the Uruguayan departmental level. Local civil society actors and unions have had respectively 7% and 6% of participation in projects. The Uruguayan local level presented staggering 2% of engagement in the discussion, creation, and/or operationalization of the New Agenda projects (Section 3.5). In other words, local participation or engagement have been scarce. The lack of continuity in projects’ execution processes have also been problematic. Aveiro (2006), Pucci (2010), Rótulo; Damiani (2010), Rótulo (2012), and Rótulo et al. (2014) show an elevated number of
cases of forgotten projects, agreements, and even overlooked official representative bodies, specially at the local level. This means that, even when local actors participated in operationalizing projects, a substantial number of them was simply abandoned along the way. As demonstrated by the same authors, it was likewise not uncommon the non-compliance or simply the non-employment of a range of bilateral agreements, particularly in the accords regulating the utilization of Uruguayan doctors in Brazilian territory and on the work, study, and residence permit for border populations2. Another identified obstacle to the operationalization of the New Agenda’s projects and agreements is the high degree of informality and illegality to the extent that activities operating apart from the rule of law could be considered a ‘common trait’ in this cross-border region (MAZZEI, 2002; MACHADO, 2005; HOFFMANN et al., 2008; PUCCI, 2010; ALVAREZ; SALLA, 2013; MAZZEI, 2013; DORFMAN et al., 2014).
Although the scholarship considers the New Agenda a state response to the historical obliviousness of the Bucbr, local actors seemed to have embraced neither its policies nor the bilateral framework created by Brazil and Uruguay into their daily practices, which leads to the raising of the following question:
o If the New Agenda is a response to local demands, why was/is there such low engagement and compliance of local actors with its projects and agreements? A careful analysis of the scholarship permits the identification of two basic, deep-rooted explanations that deal, in different degrees and perspectives, with the problem of low engagement in and compliance with New Agenda’s projects and agreements by local actors. (1) The structural explanation identifies the lack of work, human, and financial capacities hindering local level governments and other actors to profit from or engage on the new cooperative framework. Such a perspective can be found in Rótulo and Damiani (2010), Rótulo (2012), and Rótulo et al. (2014) and is corroborated by sectorial analyses on health (GUIMARÃES; GIOVANELLA, 2005; SILVA; SILVA, 2009; BONTEMPO, 2012; SCHERMA; OLIVEIRA, 2014) and education (BEHARES, 2010; OLVERA; VIERA, 2015). Here, institutional factors are also key for understanding the difficulties of furthering cooperation and development in the Bucbr. (2) The cultural explanation
2 (A) Engagement is here defined as ‘being involved with’ or ‘participating in’. It refers to the
practical participation of local actors in the making of projects within the new Agenda. (B) Compliance refers to the practice of ‘following rules or regulations’ established by the norms derived from bilateral agreements of the New Agenda.
refers to the historical development of a ‘border culture’ or custom that would be opposite to a law-abiding behavior and would diffuse the limit between legal and illegal, which would require surveillance and control by the state and national governments. This approach is key in the elementary work by Pucci (2010) and is shared by some experts studying other dynamics of this cross-border region (MACHADO, 2000; BETANCOR, 2008; DORFMAN et al., 2014; ALMEIDA, 2015). Such detailed and meticulous approaches centered their analyses either on the role of the State or the governmental contours of the Brazilian-Uruguayan bilateral efforts concerning their shared border.
Based on such discussions and perspectives, this thesis works with two hypotheses (and their respective counter-hypotheses), understood to be plausible answers to the research problem:
o Hypothesis 1: The lack of institutional and infrastructural resources diminishes the capacity of local actors to engage and comply (or to maintain engagement and compliance) with the implementation of projects and on the operationalization of agreements.
o Counter-hypothesis 1: The lack of institutional and infrastructural resources does not decrease the capacity of engagement and compliance, but local actors would prefer to continue applying techniques of trans-local interaction and cross-border cooperation through informality and illegality.
o Hypothesis 2: There are no specific advantages for local actors to engage with the New Agenda, despite what scholars affirm, which would indicate that the New Agenda is not a response to local demands, but an agenda about (not for) the border.
o Counter-hypothesis 2: There are clear advantages in implementing projects and operationalizing agreements of the New Agenda to local actors, but the ‘border culture’ hinders the application of such complicated accords.
This thesis aims at examining the processes of the New Agenda from a bottom-up perspective, that is, from the viewpoint of local-level actors. It focuses specifically on the region denominated Brazilian-Uruguayan Cross-Border Region (hereafter Bucbr), understood as the set of six cross-border urban complexes distributed along the borderline (known in most texts as ‘twin-towns’), in the span of the last fifteen years. The object of this investigation is Brazilian and Uruguayan (key) local actors’ perceptions on the operationalization processes of the New Agenda. To answer the question, this thesis seeks
to identify Bucbr local actors’ perceptions on the operationalization of the New Agenda. To accomplish this objective, it aims (1) at comprehending the historical development of the relationship between state, normative, regulatory processes, actors, and institutions operating in and deciding about the Bucbr, and local socio-political dynamics and actors in the region. (2) It seeks to analyze the political relations among actors and institutions involved in, as well as the administrative structures regarding the Bucbr, all of which led to the creation and later operationalization of the New Agenda. (3) It aims at exploring local contexts of political, economic, and social relations within each of the six cross-border complexes of the Bucbr. The guiding thread for the completion of such objectives is the understanding of the New Agenda as a means to further regionalism through bilateral cooperation. This study is not about the local responses to the application of public policies in a cross-border social environment, but about local perceptions on the employment of a regional strategy at the local level of two national structures.
The theoretical and conceptual aspects that concern this question are developed from the standpoint of the International Relations (IR), understood as a pluralistic subfield of the Social Sciences. The relative autonomous sub-subfield of International Regionalism or International Political Economy (IPE) is the place from which this investigation departs. To follow the path opened by the mentioned inquiry, this thesis tackles positions between distinct IR theoretical perspectives and draws other elements and viewpoints from History, Sociology, Political Geography, and Human Geography, applying them into a historical analysis of International Regionalism theory. This work also applies the comparative regionalism framework under a reflectivist and constructivist approach. The framework of comparative regionalism acknowledges the consolidation of regions as a primary means to deal with global affairs. It also focuses on the interactions of state and non-state actors in a multilevel perspective. The reflectivist and constructivist standpoint was inspired by ideas from constructivist, critical and post-modern theories, in which material and ideational factor intertwine, making possible the use of perception as a relevant analytical element. Some of its foundations were designed by Björn Hettne, from the University of Gothenburg, during the emergence of the period denominated ‘new regionalism’, and was much developed particularly by Fredrik Söderbaum, from whose ideas this thesis draws a great part. The first chapter of this thesis focuses on the historical development of regionalism scholarship concerning each theory’s comprehension of both formal and informal dynamics, of border, and of the building process of a (cross-border)
region, including the place of perceptions within each theoretical approach (or the lack thereof). The development of constructivist and reflectivist scholarship is detailed and later discussed within the choice of the study object.
Following the development of a conceptual framework under the chosen theoretical approach is the historical analysis on the relationship between bilateral (sometimes trilateral) regulatory processes concerning the border of Brazil and Uruguay and the implications on local socio-political dynamics within the Bucbr. Such a historical chronology dates back to the last centuries of the colonial period in South America until most recent times, which in the case of this research is mid-2017. Historical contextualization is key for covering the origins of the relationship between local, informal actors and governmental, normative, formal processes – a nexus introjected in the perceptions of actors involved. For this purpose, this thesis draws from extensive bibliography on the (micro and macro) regional history of the Bucbr, on South American regional relations (especially intra-Southern Cone relations), and on Brazilian and Uruguayan foreign policy developments. Chapter 2 presents the historical reconstitution on the relationship between bilateral regulatory processes concerning the border of Brazil and Uruguay and the implications on local socio-political dynamics within the construction of a Bucbr. It lays the relational foundation on which perceptions of local actors are built and on which Brazil and Uruguay constructed their bilateral relationship. The last fifteen years of the New Agenda, its (non)working institutionalities, its agreements, projects, and actors involved, as well as the national frameworks encompassed in this intricate bilateral agenda about the Bucbr is examined in Chapter 3. A more detailed account on the creation and operationalization of the New Agenda is developed in this part of the thesis. Here, structural and cultural elements intertwine in a complex set of institutions, ideas, and interests. The institutional limitations of the New Agenda are thus studied in the light of both explanations, serving as pillars for the socio-political and economic realities experienced by local actors.
As perceptions are deeply rooted in the personal experience of local actors, their ideas and values, identities and interests – all built within the scope of their social interactions, Chapter 4 presents a more nuanced, detailed context of local realities of the six cross-border urban complexes of the Bucbr. The study of a panorama of local, informal, cross-border relations (the so-called trans-local interactions) helps on identifying the local conditions (and actors) that were met by the policymakers of the
New Agenda. The transformations or stagnations of such conditions are valuable data on the local experiences under the New Agenda and of probable perceptions of local actors. The fifth and last chapter analyzes perceptions of local actors of the Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border region regarding the operationalization of the New Agenda within the multiple socio-political and economic contexts of the region. Perceptions are analyzed according to the two explanations (structural and cultural) on the reasons for low engagement and low compliance of local actors. Here, structural and cultural accounts are visible in local actors’ interpretations of the fifteen years of this bilateral agenda.
Source: the author (2017).
2 The Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border region and the New Agenda
The Eastern Republic of Uruguay and the Federative Republic of Brazil share a 1067-kilometer-long international border, from the Chuí stream to the Quaraí river mouth into Uruguay river. From this, 320 kilometers constitute a ‘dry border’. The remaining part is delineated by rivers, streams, or lagoons. The main physical-geographic characteristic of this international border is the absence of important landforms impeding or hindering the free circulation of people (RÓTULO; DAMIANI, 2010). But what is the Bucbr? Map 1 (previous page) shows the demarcated area (Bucbr) based on three elements that can define the politico-geographical delimitation of this cross-border region. (1) Socio-historical factors: the area in which one can attest the historical development of intense cross-border interactions among local urban and rural populations; (2) Political factors: the area on which Brazil and Uruguay focused to cooperate in and legislate about (and later create the New Agenda); (3) (Macro) regional factors: the area in which one can identify the highest levels of current infrastructural interconnection, such as roads, bridges, squares, and powerlines between Brazil and Uruguay (and Argentina).
Regarding socio-historical factors, several authors (PEDRÓN, 1970; SCHRODER et al., 2006; KÜHN, 2007; MACHADO et al., 2009; PUCCI, 2010; RODRÍGUEZ, 2010) describe a series of villages and towns to be central in the dynamics within the so-called Platine region, particularly in the formation of the current borderline between Brazil and Uruguay. Among them, six small and medium-sized binational ‘cross-border urban complexes’ (hereafter UCs) positioned along the borderline had stood out. UCs are partially integrated neighboring towns founded in both sides of the international border (DILLA, 2008; 2015). As years passed, Quaraí (BR) – Artigas (UY); Santana do Livramento (BR) – Rivera (UY); Aceguá (BR) – Aceguá (UY); Barra do Quaraí (BR) – Bella Unión (UY); Jaguarão (BR) – Rio Branco (UY); and Chuí (BR) – Chuy (UY) developed sui generis informal cooperation strategies, building up complementary local economic systems and a set of daily social interactive practices (MAZZEI, 2013)3.
3 The literature often uses alternatively the term ‘twin-towns’. This term is a designation given by
the national governments of Brazil (BR) and Uruguay (UY) to urban complexes developed on both sides of the border (BÜHRING, 2015). The Brazilian Ministry of National Integration (MNI), through Ministerial Order n. 125 (21/03/2014), defined twin-towns: “os municípios
Considering political factors, the definition of such complexes as important hubs to implement public policies and create cooperative strategies within the ‘Border Strip’ Brazilian Program (MINISTÉRIO DA INTEGRAÇÃO, 2009; NEVES et al., 2016), and the definition of those towns as target for the creation of a model of juridical regulation that could serve as an archetypal configuration for all the internal borders of Mercosur, which functioned within a range of 20 kilometers from the borderline (SANTOS; SANTOS, 2005; AVEIRO, 2006; PUCCI, 2010) delineated important geographical and political limits4. The referred UCs, in all their similarities and discrepancies, both as complexes and as neighboring towns, have had many alterations in their political environment insofar dozens of binational agreements and regional discussions could directly affect the functioning dynamics at the local level. The accords have aimed at the UCs as the main loci for social and economic development policies, dealing with issues related to health, sanitation, police, residence, study, labor, and other areas, according to local demands. This had stimulated debates among social groups and exchanges of ideas at the local level, and not rarely, in concertation with other spheres of national and subnational governments from both countries, as well as of Mercosur representatives. Moreover, the engendering process of this set of accords has been followed by changes within the Uruguayan governance framework, triggering a process of decentralization of decision-making and of political administration (CLEMENTE; NÍLSON, 2012). In the same period, Brazil focused its social and economic development program toward some of the demands from bordering communities, emphasizing a ‘positive agenda’ for cross-border regions as part of a Brazilian strategy of international insertion within the perspective of South American cooperation (GADELHA; COSTA, 2007; MATIUZZI DE SOUZA, 2015a).
The regional factors analysis on infrastructural interconnections in the context of the Southern Cone trade exchange places the Brazilian-Uruguayan complexes at the core
cortados pela linha de fronteira, seja essa seca ou fluvial, articulada ou não por obra de infraestrutura, que apresentem grande potencial de integração econômica e cultural, podendo ou não apresentar uma conurbação ou semi-conurbação com uma localidade do país vizinho, assim como manifestações "condensadas" dos problemas característicos da fronteira, que aí adquirem maior densidade, com efeitos diretos sobre o desenvolvimento regional e a cidadania” (Art. 1). They cannot have population inferior to 2000 inhabitants (Art. 2) (MINISTÉRIO DA INTEGRAÇÃO, 2014, p. 45).
4 As displayed on Map 1, the 20-Km limit was not applied in the circumscription of the Bucbr
due to the surpassing key interactions occurring under the local logics of cross-border regionalism. See Chapter, 3, Section 3.5 and Chapter 4 for more details.
of what Braga et al. (2016) denominate transnational urban systems of Mercosurian road networks. The authors explain: “Spreading from Salto, it [the urban network] encompasses the most part of Uruguay/Brazil borderland attesting its porosity, intensive interchanges and conurbation processes that enhances the urban network importance in structuring and controlling cross-border flows” (BRAGA et al., 2016, p. 116). This turns the idea of the economic irrelevance of border regions vis-à-vis Mercosur upside-down insofar it considers not the local socio-economic indices to determine the importance and participation of border regions within both domestic and regional spheres, but the position in which UCs are for the development of such enterprises. This idea is corroborated by the last decade’s centrality of the Bucbr in national and international cooperation strategies of Brazil and Uruguay (and by other strategies of creating cross-border regions, particularly between Argentina and Brazil).
It has been fifteen years since the signature of the New Agenda for Cooperation and Border Development, in 2002, which placed the Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border region in the spotlight as an important space for the engenderment of bilateral and regional settlements and is considered a milestone in institutionalized border relations in the South American continent. The period of 2003-2017 proved to be extremely fruitful regarding the progress of bilateral agreements between Brazil and Uruguay, being marked by the emergence of what Santos and Santos (2005) called a new paradigm of cross-border relations in Mercosur. The Brazilian-Uruguayan cross-border and the Bucbr became central objects of negotiation toward the advancement of bilateral relations, as it did the interactions happening in local level. It is important to note, however, the effort needed to not romanticize cooperative processes in cross-border regions, as commonly and mistakenly done in the end of the 1990s by Social Sciences scholars. As highlighted by Grimson and Vila (2002, p. 75) in their analysis on conflictive circumstances in South American and US-Mexico borders, “in the midst of a regional integration process that was supposed to make borders disappear, the characteristics of the national frontiers continue to be redefined through this tension among border populations, and between them and the national state”. A myriad of actors, institutions, ideas, and interests coexist in a multiescalar cooperative process, which can sometimes either deter or escalate conflict, locally, domestically, and internationally. As emphasized by Söderbaum (2004; 2013), the formation of a region is uneven; it can be made and unmade as actors
interrelate. The study of (micro) regionalism in the Bucbr is thus the empirical observation of such processes.
3 Theoretical and methodological remarks, and fieldwork description in the study of perceptions in international regionalism research
The reasons for choosing a reflectivist and constructivist approach within IR theoretical landscape are numerous. While constructivism sustains the notion of a continuous (de)construction of a region based on the institutions, actors, and ideas triad (RIGGIROZZI, 2012), reflectivism conceives interests of actors from their ideas, beliefs, interactions, identities, and contexts. It enables the employment of ‘perception’ as a relevant variable in IR. It understands regionalism as a multifaceted phenomenon involving interests of both state and non-state actors that, by interacting to one another, construct regional reality (SÖDERBAUM, 2004; 2013). It acknowledges regionalist dynamics through different scales of social reality (e.g. the study of a cross-border region under a ‘bigger’, bilateral or regional scenario), reducing the gap between the macro and micro levels of the regionalist phenomenon (SÖDERBAUM, 2005). It recognizes the importance of past experiences (history) in the building process of a region (DABÈNE, 2009). Lastly, it provides detachment from the rationalist approaches and their tendency towards formalism (SÖDERBAUM, 2016) (i.e. focus on state institutions) – which has been the main theoretical inclination in the study of the New Agenda.
Why study perceptions? Social constructivism emphasizes the importance of both normative and material frameworks in the formation of mutual relations among agents and structures insofar both shape international behavior (BUENO, 2009). Norms can be defined as “a result of common practice among states” (GUROWITZ, 1999, p. 417), which can indicate that cooperative practices among two states has norm-making capacities. The political and ideological convergence of Brazil and Uruguay (RÓTULO et al., 2014) that begot the creation of the New Agenda can thus be considered a normatization process since this bilateral framework for public policies’ construction produced an incredible amount of regulation on daily practices of border populations. By coordinating actions through chancelleries, the cited scholarship believes that the New Agenda also engendered a political environment privileging local negotiation and operationalization of projects, which would likewise set a standard for local cooperation
practices. Norms can also be understood, from the perspective of social practices, “as shared (thus social) understandings of standards for behavior”, as defined by Klotz (1995, p. 14). The ‘border culture’ on which Pucci (2010) focuses his explanation on the roots of operationalization issues of the New Agenda can be understood as ‘local standards’ that do not always concur to existing laws, regulations, or to international political environments, but to practices that refer to a trans-local logic. Hence, the New Agenda operationalization processes have evinced the conflict between state normatization and local practices. As a dynamic process that entails continuous multiescalar negotiation and is based on ‘umbrella agreements’ (general framework of intentions), the New Agenda has specialized in creating what Burgemeestre et al. (2014) refer to as ‘open norms’: general guidelines that require constant translation into concrete rules or constraints, and continual interpretation and evaluation of the implementation in a certain context, to assure that locals will comply/follow/change behavior because of them.
Assuming that the New Agenda’s operationalization issues and the low engagement of local actors are not related to material limitations (as it was overlooked by Pucci [2010]), the proper functioning of the bilateral engenderment thus would have presented two corollaries: (1) a (micro) social context that would have enforced local actors to do according to the ‘new’ norms (GEZELIUS, 2002), which seems not to be the case (in consonance with the cited literature); or (2) a degree of acceptability of such norms, based on different perceptions (or intersubjective interpretations) on the norms and/or on the normative system that is being produced (New Agenda). Such perceptions become visible on daily practices and on discourse (BJÖRKDAHL, 2002). If the problem of engagement and participation lies in material or infrastructural constraints, local actors’ perceptions will be inclined to criticize the set of policies and the functioning processes using such arguments. If they are based on the local inability to engage or comply with such open-norms, it is expected that local actors will ground their perceptions more on local modus operandi and contexts and less on structural or formal dynamics of the New Agenda.
Geography instructs that ‘scale’ is a central element for representing reality (RACINE et al., 1980) – an analytical artifice that makes ‘the real’ discernible and outlines the empirical field and analytical possibilities of research (CASTRO, 2000). Considering that the New Agenda involved a myriad of actors from the local, national, international, and regional levels, this thesis acknowledges the multiescalar character of
the bilateral plan, as recognized by Lemos and Rückert (2015 p. 162): “A multiescalaridade da Nova Agenda para Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Fronteiriço se acentua por se tratar de uma política relativa à fronteira, elemento no qual confluem com maior intensidade atores das escalas internacional, nacional e local”. Hence the importance of emphasizing the local contexts from which numerous demands depart and accentuate the interconnections of national, international, and (macro) regional scales.
As demonstrated in Section 2 of this Introduction, the New Agenda alone does not constitute the Bucbr, neither do state actors involved in such a formalized framework, even though it is a key (de jure) process in the region’s formation process. This requires looking at the micro-relations that constitute the de facto regionalist dynamics, understood here as trans-local social interactions within cross-border urban complexes. The formal-informal distinction becomes key in this research insofar it can reveal a myriad of actors and processes within and beyond institutional frameworks. In the context of international regionalism, a formal interaction is any interaction between states happening within their institutional structure, which follows a predetermined process toward envisaged cooperation or integration (and it is led by an ideology or agenda). An informal interaction is either a problem-solving interaction that extrapolates (or is independent of) statist institutional structures, or a spontaneous interaction of non-state actors without any prearranged objectives (also named de facto regionalism or regionalization) (DE LOMBAERDE et al., 2010). Formal regionalism concerns state cooperative/integrative relations based on official agenda; informal regionalism relates to problem-solving or spontaneous interactions among non-state actors occurring in response to, despite of, or beyond formal regional processes.
The sub-field of IPE is lacking in understanding local or micro dynamics involving international regionalism as well as a more nuanced analysis on cross-border regions. Even more so considering the ensemble of IR theory. To study local, social dynamics of the Bucbr in its entirety is not, however, a feasible enterprise. For this reason, this thesis focuses on perceptions of local actors as a primary variable and understands both local and bilateral contexts as secondary, contextual data. Berger and Luckmann (1966) and Searle (1995) highlight that people construct social reality through the transformation of the material world and through the understanding and perceptions of it. The empirical reality of international regionalism thus can be analyzed through the
